He seems to have good intentions, but does not seem to have knowledge of IRB which may make this situation worse.
Specifically, he confuses "does not constitute human subjects research" with "exemption" which is a pretty big difference and anyone who works with human subjects should know this.
From his Twitter thread, "Update: They are now saying they have an exemption. They have not made any forms available or explained the lack of informed consent."
Exemptions are protocols that have been reviewed, and deemed exempt based on one of 8 very specific criteria. Studies deemed not constituting human subjects research are returned by the IRB, and not considered reviewed.
Given that the authors actually said "...to the Princeton University Institutional Review Board, which determined that our study does not constitute human subjects research" this is clearly NOT an exemption, and informed consent is not a consideration as far as the IRB is concerned.
Specifically, he confuses "does not constitute human subjects research" with "exemption" which is a pretty big difference and anyone who works with human subjects should know this.
From his Twitter thread, "Update: They are now saying they have an exemption. They have not made any forms available or explained the lack of informed consent."
Exemptions are protocols that have been reviewed, and deemed exempt based on one of 8 very specific criteria. Studies deemed not constituting human subjects research are returned by the IRB, and not considered reviewed.
Given that the authors actually said "...to the Princeton University Institutional Review Board, which determined that our study does not constitute human subjects research" this is clearly NOT an exemption, and informed consent is not a consideration as far as the IRB is concerned.